1. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

From the end of 2009, the Defendants came to work in Victim E (hereinafter “victim E”) and came to work in the latter part of 2013, around the second half of 2013, managed 30 to 40 agents of the Victim Company, received allowances from the Victim Company, and maintained transaction relations with the Victim Company, and terminated transactions with the Victim Company around the end of 2013.

Defendant

A is a person who has established the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) from January 16, 2014 to be the representative director, and Defendant B is a person who operates F’s agency from February 2014.

The Defendants prepared for the establishment of F in competition with the victim company in the field of business, such as sale of cosmetics, and had a problem in the products of the victim company to enter F's agency owners into F's agency owners, and had an mind that executive officers of the victim company would discontinue the business.

1. From August 2013 to October 2013, Defendant A, the principal agent of the agency, and the head of the agency, and the head of the agency, and the head of the agency, as well as the head of the agency, are going to the above purport.

On November 2, 2013, the Defendant called “I who is the agent of the victim company,” and called “I shall be bound by the embezzlement of KRW 1.2 billion of the company’s funds,” which was an executive officer of the victim company at the time.

However, the facts do not contain any harmful substances exceeding the safety standards for products produced by the victim company, and on June 2013, there was a fact that the victim company received a tax investigation and paid the additional tax because the omission of sales was discovered, and the executive officers embezzled.

There was no fact of criminal punishment for this reason.

Accordingly, the defendant damages the reputation of the victim company by openly pointing out false facts, and at the same time spread false information.